I guess the answer is in that the new "green" bubble is of course nothing else than yet another selling opportunity. The purpose of having us talking about shorter showers and dimmer bulbs is not to save the energy, which frankly nobody has any idea about, but the hope that we will buy some new "green" stuff. When this theme wears off, there will be another. New projects, new funding, new opportunities, new products, and such. Does not matter what. Was Y2K, then security, then global warming, then saving the planet. It's like that bus that you see on the street, which today is all wrapped in the ad of the new movie and tomorrow in the ad of the new green initiative. The engine stays the same, the driver as well, and those inside the bus couldn't care less what's the today wrap - they aren't even aware.

Wow. Very few people are brave enough to debunk the whole consumer choice babble. Thank you, Mr. Jensen. And to throw in the double bind is exactly right. Anthony Wilden wrote a book that provides the best overview of man's relationship to his/her environment ever written called "The Rules Are No Game". Wilden used to teach at Simon Fraser University, and this book is a must read. Not easy to come by, but can be found on ABE.

Again, thanks for this.

I skimmed the comments but I did not see anyone discuss the one factor which complicates any action we might take to counter the corporate consumption culture. Overpopulation.

Several respectable scientists have stated the fact that the Earth can only reasonably and sustainably support a human population of one billion. In my own lifetime, we have gone from a world population of 2.6 billion to the present almost 7 billion people. Seven billion eating, drinking, defacating, urinating, consuming, destroying.

There is no solution to this problem that does not violate the basic human tenet of the sanctity of life. All of the violence, all of the sickeness that afflicated mankind in the 20th century only resulted in about two hundred million deaths. In that same period of time, the population increased by several billions.

We are a cancer upon the face of the planet, and like any cancer, we are unable to terminate our own existence. The Earth as a physical entity will survive, but we have the collective ability to destroy all other life forms on it. In that sense, we are killing Gaia if you accept Lovelock's contention that the Earth is actually a single complex biological organism of which we are just one part.

We are currently on track to cause an increase in global temperatures by ten degrees by the end of this century. That will have a catastrophic effect on the planet and the result will be a tremendous amout of suffering on the part of all living creatures.

We cannot as individuals affect this outcome. It is highly unrealistic to expect humanit to work collectively to solve this crisis. We are too selfish, too self-interested, too hungry to take any truly effective collective action. It just isn't going to happen.

The ultra rich will be able to afford to construct living spaces where they can sustain themselves while the rest of the world struggles and suffers wars over water and resources, mass migrations, rising sea levels and the total degradation of the atmosphere.

James Lovelock himself predicted that within the next two centuries, civilization will be lost, and humanity will be reduced to two or three hundred million fighting and struggling to survive at the poles which will be the only habitable regions on the planet.

I don't like this fact, but I don't see any way we can avoid it. I probably won't live long enough to see the start of the real suffering, but there will be plenty of developments, more warnings, and more inaction, in the interim.

wow is right. so glad derrick is using this forum for letting out a rebel yell. not to mention i saw this article the day it came out and am pleasantly surprised to see the hundreds of posts since! people obviously want to talk about the issue. i just want to sing eyes w/o a face by billy idol for some reason! lol

Wow...so many posts. I'm not sure where to start.

We, as opponents of the status quo, are always the majority in society with class exploitation, because, by definition, the majority (who have less) are denied our full potential by the elite few. Historically, however, the resistance has always been hampered by divisions: activism vs. spiritual enclave; violence vs. non-cooperation; revolution vs. reform.

The true defenders of the status quo almost always are the ones who profit from it; they, having all the wealth, but knowing they are surrounded by "potential enemies", by necessity, are well-organized. If they played fair (no lying, character assaults, manipulation, or violence), they would never have the popular consent to govern; the status quo must co-opt popular movements or die.
Thus, most citizens are co-opted simply by indoctrination through socialization: education (both mass and familial), work, and organized religion. Even though instincts tell them otherwise, most people will support sociopaths and their harmful policies simply because their intellects and morality has been co-opted since birth to rationalize away such feelings (Note: the victims must be isolated from other victims for self-deception to work) or they have learned to fear losing rights/luxuries. This either/or trap keeps most people in place, and most resistors who do not actively combat the ideas of either/or in their own heads splinter the resistance.

The Earth has existed for more than 4 billion years without people. Power/rights require responsibility. Thus, if we humans believe we have a right to exist on this planet, we must exercise enough responsibility for this planet to maintain our existance and that of every species (since we need all of them, even if indirectly). However, more power/rights require more responsibility. Thus, those who pillage the Earth and her citizens, or give those death orders, are the ones most responsible since they're the ones with the de facto power (and usually are the cause). From what I get of Jensen, it seems each citizen can and should do his part, but if the elite don't change and we don't consciously reclaim our power and birthrights from them, nothing will change, but the Earth cannot wait.

No one likes blame, especially self-blame. Given the scope of environmental damage, anyone who has ever bought anything in modern society is complicit and likely hypocritical. I believe attempts to amend this hypocrisy is more important than "moral purity" or "perfection" (impossible for any human to be like this all the time). Naturally, one can't truly inspire others without believing in a consistent lifestyle, but in my opinion, no one with a conscience should accept harm to his community or peers simply because he isn't (directly) harmed, he fears loss of liberty, life, or property, or the victims are not like him. Of course, every person's reaction is different, but I think the biggest mistake would be to write off potential allies as "unredeemable", "unrealisitc", or "shills". Most of the rank-and-file people of both mainstream parties are being used, often without many choices given by the cultural status quo. Many professionals and lower-level leaders/managers do care, but they are deceived, just like voters are, into believing they can control matters and their bosses care. Only by a sudden change in lifestyle and/or continuous nagging may bring realization to such people, but defeatism (not trying) will get nowhere.
Remember, the corporations made this mess, but even if they stopped every one of their harmful activities, they, with all their power and access, can't fix the myriad of environmental problems they created. They are not omnipotent; the fact they and their complicit states have to resort to ever more "Shock and Awe" only proves they are losing control. Greed, fear, and envy unify the elite and their sycophants only when values opposite to those hold sway in some aspect of life; with no one else to attack, the paranoid, jealous, and greedy turn on each other and whatever sense of a coherent opposition against the masses dies with it. A class war, even if violent, even with all the tools of the media against us, isn't winner-take-all, because the elites are in still in the same trap, but now with fewer workers, an environment blown to shreds (assuming no nuclear war), and warlord feudalism amongst themselves. Such a society is less stable for the rich, even though democracy has been suppressed, than now. (In short, the only way for the "rich" to permanently remove the threat of revolution, to "win", is for no one to be poor.) Of course, no one should expect the rich, without pressure, to believe in democracy, and everyone should resist or encourage resistance by any means they believe in, but overestimating the rich will stymie our efforts.

It takes an individual to change his own life, but it takes a group of activists/role models to make every individual in a community understand why they need similar changes. It takes an united community of organized and committed activists to repel an organized foe, whether that be an invading army, corporation, or government policy. Whether the plan is an armed revolt, general strike, or community farm, any plan to change the elite's policies or gain group autonomy needs to undergo such steps.

can you imagine a world without money ?

If we create " CITIZEN CENTRAL " we can start implementing the solutions tomorrow !

I'm happy to see it's understood that freedoms are not a ‘civilized’ concept. This is yet another lie we are told to keep us clinging to the power structure that enslaves us all. (Excellent explanations are to be found in the Endgame volumes, or start with Ishmael. Or read Lierre Keith, who explains eloquently that early non-native Americans had to invent laws to keep their own citizenry from running off to become adopted Indians, because the tribal life was far more free, in her book, The Vegetarian Myth.)

I am, personally, unenamored of technology, which civilization has allowed to propagandize itself, aimed at people's coerced insecurities. Technology is proceeding unfettered with things the consequences of which we haven’t a clue, and the civilized bandwagon obediently, not daring to think beyond its acceptance. Nor do civ-types generally question the validity of agriculture as a sustainable endeavor.

I’m willing to say that I’d prefer a world without nanotechnology, and without GMOs and destruction of seed diversity. Agriculture left humans with shorter bones and bad teeth, and susceptible to an array of new diseases, the aptly-named diseases of civilization. I’m willing to say that civilization *is* the issue, whereas indigenous tribal populations have lived sustainably for tens of thousands of years. And I’m willing to work tirelessly to get us backward into that sort of sustainability, where I have capabilities to do so. And I don't think I'm alone -- am I?

We can build community, we can begin to grow our own foods using indigenous knowledge of our area(s), and include city chickens or other necessary meat where farming isn't the norm, and we can learn how to coexist with other life on our landbase(s). Without agriculture as it exists, the waterways will eventually return to life, and a further downshift will be possible, I suspect.

Beyond the personal, even the communal is hardly a full step farther. But we can dismantle civilization, each of us in whatever paths we have courage enough to follow (there are plenty of legal things, without venturing into the actionable, although they tend to bleed time and money from their participants), as we proceed with the personal and the communal solutions. The first two only work if they accompany the third.

What Jensen is saying makes much more sense if you understand the cyclical nature and societal denial that is the enabler of child abuse...

Child abuse is abroad range of actions, from gross to subtle, that cause harm to children, thus from paedophilia to violence to the subtle colonisation of childrens minds by marketing psychologists who are determined to turn them into 'evolving consumers' (technical marketing term for children!) for future profit, an act that is both manipulative and nasty.... yet rationalised by business psychology. War in the 21st Century is child abuse. Blair and Bush, Obam and Brown, Berlusconi and all the others are child abusers. And they do it for profit.

Likewise compulsory state education, done for profit, which John Holt and John Taylor Gatto have clearly shown is mostly damaging to our children, on behalf of big business.... intentionally so - those who drive it know exactly what they are doing, even if the front-line personel do not (which is most frequently the case, from schools to policing to the military ).... Ritalin is child abuse...

Abuse of children is endemic in this current culture, as is the abuse of nature. This is so much a part of the system that we must force it to first STOP, then we can deal with the next step. To not do so merely perpetuates the abuse....

This is rarely ever mentioned, the dots are not being connected...denial is rampant.... and time is running out...

Fact : every process we currently engage in can be replaced with methods that return nutrients back into the natural world in ways the natural world can utilise. All that is lacking is the will.

The abusers, who ever they may be, will NOT VOLUNTARILY cease their abuse. It is stupidly naive to think so. They rationalise their abuse and others, the co-dependents, buy into it. Therefore the abusers must be stopped, stopped dead in their tracks... and soon.

And that will only come from collective action, no individual action will do this on it's own, only a massive collective "No!" that is active and determined. And that has to be underpinned by an experienced awareness of the dynamics of abuse and denial, which informs each and every one of us.... without that info, that sensing, all attempts to change will fail.

The choice is ours, today....

Kindest regards

Corneilius

do what you love, it's your gift to universe

I agree with the gist of what Jensen is saying here, but first also agree with basamlazar, that Jensen is simplifying and overlooking most of the relationship between personal choices and industrial production. I also have a second concern:

Nazi Germany, antebellum US, Tsarist Russia are not comparable to "industrial economy" we're talking about fighting capitalism, a global system. This is much much bigger than those other things. "Voting, not voting, running for office, pamphleting, boycotting, organizing, lobbying, protesting" are the equivalent of entering this fight armed with a featherduster the opponent has provided you with. Even altering or abolishing the government (which will require fighting with something A LOT stronger than these featherdusters) is an exclusively political approach.

Jensen is buying into the separation of politics from economics. As a result he doesn't recognize how growing a garden is more than "harm reduction" it is the creation of a non-capitalist economy. So, he's right, we need to stop thinking of personal changes as political because of their harm reduction. We need to think of them as political because of their autonomy production. This autonomy is a pre-requisite to useful political action. More thoughts along these lines- http://rwinsome.blogspot.com/2009/07/forget-shorter-showers.html

While the DIRECT consumption and waste (energy, food, etc.) by individuals is insignificant relative to the industries, etc., the author, I hope not by accident because it is common sense, forgets that all of these industries serve us. They consume and waste in order to feed and serve our individual habits. As such, it is our actions, all of us individually, that will shape law and wholesale reconfiguration of our economies.

Good article. One military jet exercise wipes out thousands of short showers. Nonetheless, we should practice those small individual things so we can have a life of inclusive consciousness and responsibility. But there is little hope unless we also attack the automobile culture and the vast militarism that threaten our childrens' world.

Joe

this article seems like a straw man. I simply do not know anyone who claims that shorter showers and the like are THE solution. everyone i know does the exact opposite; waits for corporations to change or the gov't to force them to so they don't have to take shorter showers. or perhaps they don't mind shorter showers, so they put all the emphasis on shorter showers and the corporations having to change, etc. but what everyone seems to want, individuals, corporations, the government, is for everyone else to change so that they don't have to. and it's always someone else's responsibility, not ours to drive less, starve the worst corporations out of existence, give up the ridiculous privilege of constant air travel AND take shorter showers and have better light bulbs. no one thing will do it. we all pretty much have to do almost everything.

This essay is the essence of what Jensen said in his talk at WWU in Bellingham recently, only said more eloquently here; and it is an example of what frustrates me about Jensen.

I believe simple living is a moral action, a civil action, a political action, a spiritual action, and a healthy action. And I believe community action and more direct political action is also necessary. The problem of the planet needs to be attacked on many levels, and from many directions.

Jensen says "Personal change doesn’t equal social change." And his most important take home message is " the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems."

He fails to make the connection that the industrial economy is dependent upon consumers. He fails to connect the dots that when individuals disengage from the consumer economy, they are withdrawing support from industry. He talks about the vast majority of consumption being commercial, industrial, corporate, by agribusiness and government and military rather than by individual consumers. This is the same error made by mainstream economists that ignore externalities - isn't it obvious that individual consumption accounting needs to take into account the consumption of resources that occur in the production and delivery of the products consumed?

The point is valid and extremely important that changing lightbulbs and inflating tires and other minor personal behavior changes is not going to get us where we need to go. The point that he should be making is that we need to engage in curtailment behaviors (see Pat Murphy, Plan C: Curtailment and Community) on the individual, corporate, and society wide scale. Instead, the message that comes across (intended or not) is that we are excused from personal responsibility for the mess we're in, and that to engage personally in powering down is not worth the effort. We are not to worry about how we're involved personally in the destruction of the planet - we're off the hook and free to point our fingers at those other oppresive bad guys in the world.

And not only to point our fingers, but to confront and take them down. And yet, he fails to explain exactly how to do that in a manner that is effective. He makes the analogy to fighting Hitler. And yet, if we haven't personally disengaged ourselves from the evil enemy by changing our behaviors and setting ourselves apart, how do we fight this war, and who do we fight against? Where's the army with the swastikas on their sleeves?

And, more importantly, what are the most effective tactics that might lead us to victory? Elsewhere, Jensen has written about blowing up dams. Will that be an effective tactic, or will the blowback set the environmental movement back a couple decades?

To begin thinking about effective action, I think Alan Seid's 'Peak Moment TV interview' is a good starting place.

David

This article kept me thinking - and this is what I feel:
When there are certain issues that demand immediate action and when it is clear that it's the system that's the problem, there is no point in talking about individual responsibility. It's time for collective action. Examples? Single payer health care, reforming the banking system, putting a stop to market manipulation (or make it as hard as monitoring technology would allow), stopping mountain top removal...Yes - I agree with all those who insisted on collective action - that there are certain issues where only collective action will work.

However, there are cases where blaming the 'system' won't work, when we are participating in it actively (or passively). Tackling climate change is a case in point. Though it's an urgent collective problem, it does involve lots of individual choices that have a bearing on the collective. In such a case, maybe it's best to listen to the scientists, just make the law and enforce it.

Democracy takes work and commitment. Tuning out of mindless 'entertainment' and encouraging family and friends to do so as well could be a first step in freeing our minds and finding the extra energy for action. Just thinking aloud...

When you can forgive the brother or sister you hate, when you can see them with love and not judgment, when you finally understand and see the truth beyond the lies, your task as one human being will be completed and a new day will dawn for all of humankind.

Great points, but sometimes we have to think in generations because people are slow to change.

Consider racism. Teaching a biased generation not to hate is nearly futile. However, teaching their children to not to hate is realistic.

If we can get our next generation of policymakers to grow up taking personal responsibility for the environment to the point that they have a sinking feeling, like many of us have, when resources are plundered and species die, then we have a better chance of getting our big industry regulated once our children are in office.

But in the meantime, people need to be making the points you are making. However, the meantime is also when change is only likely to occur due to radical disasters or social revolt.

Great idea from Abe Winken about expanding this discussion to radio. Derrick Jensen is going to be a regular guest on a community radio station, WOJB, 88.9 FM ( www.wojb.org) the first Monday of every month at 10 A.M. CDST immediately following that station's broadcast of Democracy Now. The station broadcasts from the Lac Courte Oreille Ojibway reservation and streams live on the web.
I heard him on this station last week and it was an excellent forum to discuss these issues. Great responses from people and a discussion that has been long overdue. They welcome phone calls and questions. He will be on August 3---can't wait to hear this discussion in real time.

Onward!

a cynic's view...

they completely broke the financial system in 1929...

spent 50 years groping their way back...

the next 30 years screaming and yelling...

until they broke it again...

and now what do they say...?

don't stifle financial innovation with regulation and reform...

huh...?

there will always be the huns comin' across the hill... no matter how "good" you live...

and if ya ain't willing to "whack" 'em like a good old mob hit... they'll "whack" you... first. period.

my idea of good livin'... take a few of the fuckers out and shoot 'em... after they dig their own grave... then send a bill for the bullet...

then i'll go back to my "clean" living... and if using a gun contributes to "industrialization"... use a good solid tree branch about the backside of the head...

"We can follow the example of those who remember that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power,with as much integrity as possible, but to
confront and take down those systems."

Wow!!!! This is amAzing. This article rocks! Because unless we all get on the same band wagon, even in the direction of individual lifestyle change,plus get over the notion that we "need" all those consumer products and convenient life styles, THEN THE CORPORATIONS WIN AND THE PLANET LOOSES.

How about this: personal change that leads to greater understanding will also lead to more EFFECTIVE activism. Why? Because we will no longer be serving 'ego' (i.e., me and my wants), but that which benefits the whole. Primarily, we will help bring a better understanding to others, and their cooperation along with it. That way, any change that's brought about will not be through violence and imposition.

Having criticized this article first, I want to make this clarification - individual change/action is NECESSARY but NOT SUFFICIENT. Having read Derrick Jensen's books, I have to say, I agree with him on the need for a radical change - maybe "the system" does need to go. But again, it's not so simple - because, those who benefit somewhat (or at least think they do) from the system are going to defend it by defending "their lifestyle". Although it's very much a class issue, the fight would most likely be between neighbors and your fellow-citizens - as in the case of abortion and anti-war issues.

Also, like 'The Socialist' pointed out, "Action is no good unless you know what you are fighting for. ...This intellectual understanding is the first step in opposing the system." We don't need to become experts in environmental and economic issues - but we should at least be capable of recognizing those that understand and are committed to fight for the common good. The fact that people like McKinney, Nader and Kucinich did not get elected clearly shows that the message didn't get through to enough of the people. Of course, Obama had the money - but he also made the right speeches, and made sure didn't offend too many people. He even had to renounce his pastor and got attacked for his "guns and religion" remarks. What this shows is that you are not going to get that many supporters for your cause if you cannot get your message across.

Also, it's no good to get stuck on labels. Case in point: Ron Paul. I don't think all those who supported him in 2008 were libertarians - my guess is that these were people who were impressed by his stand on the Fed and the American empire. He got the largest contributions (among Repub's) from U.S. service men and women - and so did Obama on the Dem. side. While Obama's supporters may be regretting, I don't think Ron Paul's supporters are. I don't know if Ralph Nader will run in 2012, but Dennis Kucinich has made it known that he will. Maybe there will be others who are better. Of course, before 2012, there is 2010. So, even if the system cannot be taken down, there is a chance to overhaul it. For that, yes, I agree there needs to be more than just individual change. But there's no substitute for educating ourselves continuously. My request is to please read up on "Ecological Footprint" (of which carbon footprint is a component) and "Water Footprint" - because whatever change we are fighting for needs to be sustainable.

People that defend baking cookies, the messianic sum of personal choices, sending letters to reps, those things are alright but are also getting almost nowhere. Walk about in the world, we still don't see the rippling effects of these conscious actions. We see the odd hybrid making traffic worse so that the majority of internal combustion cars end up polluting more. In the meantime mountain removal, tar sands, industrial fishing and all the other nasties continue unabated.

Keep making good personal choices but see them for what they are: one among many that are worse, do them because is the moral thing to do but not thinking that you're changing the world cause' it's just not so. We're told to be patient and hopeful but we always have to wonder who benefits from our patience.

We ought to find real strategies that work, and soon.

This author obviously hasn't thought things through. When everyone takes individual responsibility for improving the society then umm duh, my pet goat can even figure out that that's a herd moving in the right direction. What is it about this the author doesn't get? All the rest of the progressives know that change starts at the grass roots. My guess is that DLC/AIPAC are paying both him and Orion to push garbage.

As a long-time activist, I agree with Jensen's perspective, and my best friend (who is a teacher, attempting to educate teenagers about the choices we make) was annoyed by the article's cynical tone.

I believe that the personal choices we make to live healthier and more conscious lives are worthwhile, and can have significant impact. Not enough impact, given the entrenched nature of corporate power. I think rather than an "either/or" of activism/personal lifestyle choices, efforts on both fronts are worthwhile, and necessary. If we activists are living vibrant and joyous lives consuming less, we provide examples that others will want to emulate.

And, there's always a danger in asserting that one's notions of the best strategies to address the big issues are the Correct ones-- we'll need a variety of strategies on many fronts to reach our goals, and it's probably a good idea not to ridicule our natural allies who don't see things exactly the same way we do.

Yes, thanks to the CD community for some sanity in the age of confusion, disinformation and fear.

I remember sometime back around the invasion of Iraq (Feb 03?) when things were really dark and many of us antiwar demonstrators would almost get attacked by people in the crowd (there is a lot of military here in Honolulu) with many swearing at us and giving us the finger. Some of my fellow demonstrators used to get really angry and what to confront them but I would just smile and yell: "Yes, yes, express yourself. That's what democracy is all about!"

Well one night I tried to tune into CD and there was nothing there. A shock of fear went through me and I thought they must be starting the purge. I always maintained in a budding fascist state, there is a fairly short, open window of opportunity to speak out and try and reverse the trend but then after a certain period all decent will get the iron fist treatment. Then you must either shut up and secret yourself, become a revolutionary (in physical action) or if possible just get the hell out of the country. I being older would opt for the later and by the way, have some money stashed in Canada for said eventuality.

Well the next day I was so relieved to find that it was just some kind of repair or update service work and I wouldn't be going to the gas cambers after all.

Thanks CD for being there on so many days over these crazy times and thanks for all the madly sane individuals who contribute to finding the truth through open dialogue.

Great article Mr. Jensen, PROVOCATIVE- good food for thought. Excellent posts! Hats off- good job people!

I would like to offer a strong thanks for this article. Whatever the issue, when it comes to progressive solutions, it's all too often a matter of preaching "personal" choices and responsibility. For example, let's take health care. For an issue that isn't too hard to solve, we're all disunited. I know some people will argue that "We ain't got enough votes to pass single payer", "Obama can't do it alone. Make him do it", and all the other excuses. The feeling of powerlessness is what pits us against each other when in fact we should be united. If we had 10 million people protesting in Washington for HR 676, that alone would have been a strong snap to the politicians to pass the bill already. Unfortunately, the public is rendered too ignorance of what's really ailing them and made to feel "guilty" for not being perfect. I've seen some who have said that for all the hope and change Obama promised, he's making us do all his work that we hired him to do. They're right up to a point.

The 2nd and 4th problems remind me of the debate everyone got into on maxpayne when he entered the site. I know he was angry and nuts at first when some tried to tell him that his working for a defense contractor meant aiding the enemy. Eventually, I think we all realized that despite who or what he works for, he has to work just to pay his general costs and that it's not him who's doing all the killing but those using his work that are responsible. This is somewhat debatable still but since maxpayne has toned down and is willing to listen and learn, I'll give the lad some faith. This brings us back to what I said earlier about the politicians. Obama and the Congress hold the power to do what most of us can't do. Since they have the power and not the individuals, it makes no sense to shift the burden of responsibility to the taxpayers. The politicians have a duty to complete and promises to uphold. You wouldn't rehire someone who making a huge mess in your company so why keep reelecting the same people who continue the mess? I have some more to say but I'm gettin' tired here so maybe I'll have more to say tomorrow.

Derrick Jensen is totally right, and if you try to argue with him you will not get anywhere because the Earth really is finite, and cannot be heedlessly exploited forever. it's already mortally wounded from industrial civ/ capital/ consumerism, and the whole system must be stopped if the Earth is to be saved.

somewhere maybe in Endgame he says we are like an occupied country. i think this is a useful model to start from. it also implies some serious resistance movement, which i believe is what is needed.

don't ask me how to get the citizens aroused enough to do this.they seem to be in a coma.

I looove long showers! Because it feels so good and I love to be clean. I usually get really dirty and work up a sweat each day. So long showers is something I indulge in.

And I can do this without feeling the slightest bit of guilt. In the summer our water is heated by the sun. In winter we heat water with scrap wood, as we have one of the only wood burning hot water heaters in the country.

And our water comes from the nearby mountains via melting glaciers. And all our gray water is directed out to feed raspberries, strawberries, wild rose, service berries, choke cherries, aspen, irises, peppermint and spearmint.

But I think the author is incorrect. Personal change can and does affect political change in many ways I won't elaborate on right now. Ted Markow, Jesus Hussein Christ, chessgame 56. Sioux Rose, AGG, Jennifer Bedingfield, Alcyon, zmann, azjoe, Rastaman, pjd412, xzorloc, Stone and others have made some very enlightened points here.

Should we fight or should we live simply? I think, both. I quote Bob Marley a lot, because his lyrics are so wise and relevant. So I leave you all with another Bob Marley quote: "Never give up the fight!"

On that note, I'm off to take a long solar shower. Then I think I'll bake a few dozen oatmeal-hemp cookies, write a few congressional representatives, and sharpen my garden tools.

Great article, especially evidenced by the resulting discussion. I am a great fan of Derrick Jensen, and would encourage people who have been offended by the tone or content of this article to read some of his books. Nevertheless, I found this particular article patronizing and condescending. Of course, personal does not equal political, but it is often an essential first step. As someone who works with young people on a daily basis, I have seen many cases of a newly discovered personal power feeding a political agenda. I think Jensen succumbs to the same fallacy he assumes of others: that this is all up to us. In reality, we are engaged in a multi-generational struggle over the future of our planet, and we need to wake up to the fact that the education of the next generation(s) is key in how we look at long-term strategy. But I find Jensen's analysis in this article simplistic.

Like his writing, and agree with 2/3's, and liked the comic book too! But he doesn't have to make a leap of 'do without electricity'...with solar panels, that is a one time extraction. NOWHERE near what daily 'burning' and raping for immediate gain does. Just in ten years of research, they are powerful enough to run my entire flat...a dense urban flat of course. heh. cuz we be working class. who do NOT use near this average you seen thrown about for all americans. Check out how much the US military pollutes daily..the ONE biggest single source of the planet!!!
..lets get to that point of no huge imperialist wars, no more famine....WITH the idea of saving the planet...
Kropotkin said as much one hundred years ago...social movements all over the world are doing it. Rising from the bottom up to create more democracy and to save the earth.IT has to go hand in hand, unless you are a rightist authoritarian marxist, or capitalist.
FIrst thing we should be doing in the USA, is organizing massive direct democracy only peoples' orgs. For mutual aid, some small victories, and always fighting hard and militant (non violently of course) to stop the wars (general strike for 3 to 5 days, not one day dammit,, and then do it again and again.. why is no one organizing it for May 1st? Well WE start NOW)..and starting to learn what BANK owned land we can sieze both in the cities and nearby, and start building allies and peoples to learn and prepare to demand we start running everything.
for us and for the planet......give yourself at least a 20 year battle...for some big victories...don't expect 15 minutes of satisfaction guarenteed....the people will reward you.
That's what I am doing....already am working with 50 people...in just one month of asking around and.....with a newspaper....lets see it snowball....DON"T rely on the web PLEASE. face to face democracy!!!!and newspapers...and....you know..people stuff....not just sitting TYPING!!! ANd be tough. and no begging politicians. People respect that. And then will listen. People are pissed. Turn off NPR while you're all at it too.

Speak to them in the language they understand. Violence. Explosions. Fire. I want to see flashmobs 1000 strong storming a walmart at midnite. Hurt their wallets. Break their cars.

Can we really 'reform' the world without 'reforming' ourselves first? What if vast numbers of people stopped being the 'good little consumer,' and become frugal, purchasing only [or mostly only] the basics (for example)? Would that not dramatically change the corporate landscape? Refusing to cooperate can be a very powerful action--or inaction, depending on how you look at it. What are we presently cooperating with that's negatively affecting both us as individuals and the world at large? Think about it.

Remember too that no violent or evil means can bring about a good end. And a quiet revolution is next to impossible to stop. No one can force you to 'eat' junk food if you really don't want to, psychological or otherwise.

Whew!
We've got some very deeply pushed buttons around here today.
Okay, here's my view for what it's worth.
1) Mr. Jensen is right.
2) People like me who advocate frugality as freedom will eventually be wiped out because we aren't bellicose enough to physically fight the predators.
3) I'm not going to change.
4) I DO have a death wish.
5) I HAVE lost hope in humanity.
6) The rich are destroying the world, not the poor or middle class. Jensen rightly shows that "it ain't us" whether here or abroad. All that stuff about the new age and lets get together and be nice, nice is propaganda crap to keep us blaming "the victim" instead of the elite bastards.
7) I don't live frugally because I save money or because I want to be rich or because of social and ecological responsibility. I do it because it interferes with corporate profits.
8) Soux Rose recently said she was praying for divine intervention. I am too. Nothing else will fix this fucking mess.

My analysis of our problems as a species which devours and kills everything around it is that the key to a solution lies in wealth limitation. If EVERYONE was prevented by everyone else from having more money than would provide for a middle class retirement lifestyle for the rest of one's life, then greed could be reined in, CEO pay would be modest, wars wouldn't be as lucrative, and there would be full employment. From there we deal with the thorny issue of everyday human rudeness, cliquishness, tribal and racist behavior, etc.

But for now we have to see the reality of what is trashing the world in the USA:

55% WAR, war funding, war bribes, war pollution, war attitudes, war job motivators, predatory society celebration (the elites), smile and wink at roguish politicians.

40% Non war corporate pollution through agriculture, transportation and gadgetry.

5% The middle and poor VOLUNTARY class behavior. This doesn't include poor kids become world class polluters in the military. I don't consider that voluntary as they have been railroaded into looking for a job fighting wars for the rich.

So the bottom line is this:
If you can't stop funding wars and weapons, bribes and predators and celebrating all this shit in books and movies as the american way, then FORGET IT. We are history. The elites, in their sealed domes with air and water filtering systems will last a few decades longer than the rest of humanity but they'll die too.
All this crap about the environment and saving the planet earth is like pissing in the wind. It's the God damned wars that have to be stopped first and forever.
And no, I don't see how we can do that. Sorry. I guess I'm a coward but I refuse to become some kind of special forces wacko killer in order to stop wars. I won't be like them. I'd rather die and I probably will.

"Transcendent generosity is a state of mind. If I wanted to walk around the world, I could not

possibly find enough leather to cover the surface of the earth. But just covering the soles of

my shoes with leather works even better. Likewise, I could not possibly transform all bad

things outside in the world. But if I can transform this mind of mine, what need do I have to

transform everything else?"--eighth-century Buddhist teacher Shantideva.

Wow fabulous conversation here. It is part of the solution.

I find Derrick Jensen's writing depressing. It leads me to a place where I run around in circles not sure what to do. So I set him side but remember what his point is... something has to happen and soon probably.

Everyone here has lots of suggestions with some strong advocates for their positions. Pushing to get others on their side. Less criticism is better. Acceptance of others point of view better even if you do not wish to travel that road.

I don't think it is about sides but moderation. Each does what they can to effect change personally. They gain from that personally but it also helps others. To not buy what they sell is a small step in a journey of a thousand steps. The vortex it creates sucks others along.

But the personal will not as Jensen points out do the trick. The mass attack on injustice, inequality and corporate control has to happen also. Here each must do all they can to push for what they feel in themselves is right to do. Some don't eat meat some feel they must. It's not right or wrong. Some feel non-violence is the answer and in the past sometimes that has been met with violence. Some feel that violent overthrow is the only answer.

It will happen when each of us stop thinking about it and do all we feel we can in actions whatever our ideology drives us to do. Our individual ideologies may never be fully accomplished but overall we will move forward in the right direction. Democracy provides the solution.The moderation of all view points.

CommonDreams is a terrific outlet but this is a great discussion that needs expanding beyond this one source. Democracy now and local radio stations are other outlets.

Thank you all for participating in this much needed change.

According to the author it's not enough to change as an individual we must "follow the examples of brave activists who lived through the difficult times I mentioned-Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, antebellum United States, who did far more than manifest a form of moral purity, they actively opposed the injustices that surrounded them."

And how did they do that? He doesn't say.

He continues,

"We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems".

Read his criticism of the so called "lifestyle left" and of the actions taken thus far, then read his last paragraph I quoted. Seems to me that Jensen is advocating a violent overthrow of the system. If not, then what is he saying?

Jensen pretty much nails it.
As did Karl Marx. Marx was an _anti-corporatist_, not an anti-capitalist. Marx saw soul-less, yet, ironically, _immortal_ corporations as the _real_ problem. Corporations, man-made legal-paper creations, "exist" in order to acquire endless amounts of capital and resources. Corporations merely hire humans to do the actual work of extracting and working the resources. The earth has been progressively destroyed, the commons have been cordoned off, and ordinary workers "live" in an ever-diminished, ravaged environment.
Corporations need no air, water, food to "live." They merely require human gullibility.
Hence, CEO's (AKA high-priced corporate valets/bodyguards) hire private armies, corrupt governments that--in turn--tax the rest of us to hire national armies to prevent armed insurrection against corporate apologists.
Did the wonderful human beings who constitute our lovely Jeffersonian republic fall asleep in Econ 101 or History 101 when we hit the chapter on corporations?

This is a ridiculous piece of...uh...writing...and would only have the effect of further dividing those of us here that want to see some fundamental change. I have read Derrick Jensen's "Endgame" and "Strangely Like War: The Global Assault on Forests". I was impressed, disturbed, concerned and of course motivated....- and it's writings like these that clearly showed to me that any real change HAS TO start with the individual, but obviously need not stop with the individual. While change at the individual level is NECESSARY, it is often NOT SUFFICIENT. That's really the whole point of this article, as I understood it.

But reading the comments, I could clearly see a hostility towards those that are trying to adapt their lives to the reality as understood by the individuals. Some seem to have been rubbed the wrong way by vegans, too. Either that, or they only want to make the changes that are "convenient". That's unfortunate. Some clearly come off as hypocrites and wannabes, and not too different from right-wing zealots. If you can have right wing nuts, why not left wing nuts, huh?

Discounting individual responsibility is exactly what sustains "the system", and manifests in macro-level dysfunction. For example, when some people pointed out that America's past actions had probably something to do with 9/11, they were attacked as "unpatriotic". Many of us here can see the link between America's blind and unquestioning support (not to mention the military aid) to Israel and the needless hostility it provokes in the Islamic world. And some of us can see the link between a blind faith of the evangelicals in "End Times" myth is used as a cover for support for the Zionist state. And people like George Bush could get elected because of these "individuals" to whom their faith is more important than reality. And a different set of "individuals" voted en masse, all the while imagining that they were part of some kind of major movement for "change", and elected Obama. Obama knew the right kind of things to say to appeal to the largest number of "individuals", while other "individuals" saw through the hype and voted for Ralph Nader. Of course, if Ralph Nader has to win and bring about real change, he would need the support of more "individuals" who can think for themselves and see the logic of what Nader says and has done.

Joining a movement is the easiest part. Any demagogue can rally the masses, but the outcome may not always be benign - there are enough examples in history, so I don't need to list them. And there is always the danger of fascism and brutality in such movements if they disregard the individual, and it will be one more ideology to be torn down at a later date.

This article is based on the premise that political change has not happened because people are content with personal change and haven't organized as a movement. I would say it's not really true. Whether you are an evangelical, lefty, vegan or whoever - everyone wants some change. The problem is that they want this change to suit their idea of reality. Another problem is that many of us are hypocrites at some level - and this hypocrisy is easily exploited by the politicians and demagogues and the media.

And we are not up against the Nazis and the Tsarists - this is important to recognize. You will invariably run into those that want to defend their "way of life", their "faith" and what not - and they are your neighbors, and maybe even relatives. If you think you can mobilize, they can, too. But if they can see that you are an "individual" with personal integrity, there is a chance that they might consider your point of view. Of course, this doesn't stop YOU from joining up with like minded "individuals", starting a movement or whatever you think you need is necessary to bring about change. But ask yourself - wouldn't you want your fellow activists and definitely your leaders to practice what they preach?

Here's a challenge: Derrick Jensen is a radical thinker. How radical are YOU prepared to go to bring about a change and take down the system without brutalizing the individual? Beating up those that try to do whatever they can and exchanging smug remarks is NOT radical.

I think it's both/and...change from the top in terms of fundamental change in government and corporate power etc., and change from the bottom, i.e. personal changes which can generate a critical mass.

I agree with this article. Some of the commenters here seem to be suggesting that we should feel guilty for not protesting instead. I don't buy that. Action is no good unless you know what you are fighting for. We need a fundamentally different society, a socialist society instead of a capitalist society. This intellectual understanding is the first step in opposing the system. Simply supporting different ideas may be lame. But how can people fight against the system if they don't know that they should be against it in the first place?

Thich Nhat Hahn said, in a speech in New York “when you eat meat, you are eating the flesh of all those children who have starved to death because there wasn’t enough food, grain to feed them.” This is not so esoteric. The math is really clear: decreasing human deaths and feeding the hungry are two major effects of a plant-source only diet.

In other countries like France, the people have much more control than we do in the U.S. Can someone enlighten me as to why (other than that they were a democracy before the U.S.) as to what factors make their citizens so much more active in a public way?

I like Jensen, but this piece misses the mark, in my opinion. He quotes Kirkpatrick Sale:
"individual consumption—residential, by private car, and so on—is never more than about a quarter of all consumption; the vast majority is commercial, industrial, corporate, by agribusiness and government [he forgot military]."
But, why does the commercial, industrial, corporate et al systems consume so much? It's because we, as individuals, tend to buy their stuff, and all that stuff requires resources to produce. Industry and corporations don't continuously make random crap that doesn't sell, that would undermine their raison d'etre, which is to make a profit. WE ALL BUY IT. Ergo, if we buy less, they make less, they use fewer resources.
The Western civilization model is broken, no argument here, but if we all collectively fail to take responsibility for the mess we're in, we don't have much hope in collectively fixing it. Conversely, if we can convince each individual to take their own share of responsibility for change, we'll be a lot better off than blaming some nebulous, abstract "system" that we're actually all a part of.